Method and apparatus for prioritizing errors in a medical treatment system

ABSTRACT

A method and apparatus are disclosed for detecting, analyzing and displaying errors in a medical treatment system. Detected errors are analyzed to define further errors. Errors may be classified, for example, in response to severity, and prioritized. Prioritization may depend on a scope of the error, an order of occurrence, importance, or other factors.

REFERENCES TO PARENT AND CO-PENDING APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority from and is a continuation-in-part ofU.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/425,868, filed Jun. 22, 2006 nowU.S. Pat. No. 7,533,002, which is a continuation of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 10/893,274, filed Jul. 19, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No.7,076,399 issued on Jul. 11, 2006.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The invention relates to medical generators, for example, forelectrosurgical applications, and more particularly to controls for suchgenerators.

BACKGROUND OF THE ART

Medical generators are widely used in medical treatment systems. Theirnumerous functions include: supplying energy for treatment,communicating with measuring, monitoring, and/or treatment devices,controlling the activity of one or more peripheral treatment devices(such as pumps or suction devices), computing and analyzing input data,and displaying or otherwise communicating treatment information to auser. With such a wide range of uses, medical generators oftencommunicate with multiple devices, each of whose operational parametersmay depend on the activity of other devices.

The complexity of multiple inputs and interactions, which gives medicalgenerators their versatility and utility, can also cause moreopportunities for errors to arise. These errors can often be difficultfor a user to diagnose because of the multiple possible causes of asingle problem. For example, in a medical treatment system that monitorsimpedance while energy is delivered to a tissue through a probe, anexcessively high impedance measurement could be caused by vaporizationof the tissue, a malfunctioning impedance monitor, or a disconnection ofthe treatment device.

It is often necessary to identify the causes of errors and to fix theerrors as quickly as possible to ensure safety, due to the delicatenature of some medical treatment procedures. Frequently, however,individuals operating a medical treatment system do not have a technicalbackground or a detailed knowledge of the way the system works. If thereis an error in the operation of the medical treatment system, theseusers may not understand how to solve the error and may not recognizewhether an error is signaling a more fundamental problem. Compoundingthis complexity are differences in component function with differentmodes of operation, meaning that one error may have different causes atdifferent times.

Currently, some medical generators for use in medical treatment systemsuse a coded display requiring a user to look up an error code indocumentation which may raise follow-up questions to help troubleshootthe problem further. This approach can be time consuming andinconvenient during a medical procedure. Some medical generators use anon-screen display that informs the operator of an error and may suggestpossible courses of action. However, many errors, such as highimpedance, may have a variety of possible causes and suggested coursesof action for resolution. In these cases, it can be time consuming todetermine which course of action will resolve the error. If multipleerrors are detected additional time and effort will be required todetermine whether the errors are jointly or independently caused, andwhich course(s) of action will optimally and efficiently resolve allerrors.

U.S. Pat. No. 6,788,965, issued Sep. 7, 2004 to Ruchti et al, disclosesa system for detecting errors and determining failure modes related to anon-invasive blood glucose monitor. Ruchti et al. disclose an errordetection system that employs a hierarchical series of levels todetermine whether or not a given glucose measurement is invalid. Eachlevel utilizes different criteria (e.g. rudimentary specifications,patient history, etc.) for determining the validity of the measurement.Ruchti et al. do not describe a medical treatment apparatus with variousfunctions, modes of operation or multiple inputs/outputs and do notdescribe an error logic system that may solve the difficultiesassociated with such an apparatus as described above.

A solution which addresses one or more of these shortcomings is desired.

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE

In one broad aspect, embodiments of the present invention comprise amethod of prioritizing errors in a medical treatment system comprising aenergy source and at least one associated device, the method comprising:detecting at least two errors in the operation of at least one of theenergy source and the at least one associated device; and prioritizingat least one of the at least two errors based on at least onecharacteristic of each of the at least two errors.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In order that the invention may be readily understood, embodiments ofthe invention are illustrated by way of examples in the accompanyingdrawings, in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary medical treatmentsystem in which the present invention can be used;

FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of the components of a generator inaccordance with one embodiment of the invention; and

FIG. 3 illustrates a flow chart of operations for performinghierarchical error logic in accordance with an aspect of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A first embodiment of the invention provides a method of error detectionand analysis to be used in an energy source, for example a generator102, that supplies energy to a system 100 used to treat pain in ananimal body, particularly a human (FIG. 1). The system 100 comprises agenerator 102 for delivering energy through one or more energy deliverydevices 104. Generator 102 may also control the activity of one or moreperipheral treatment devices 108, such as pumps. Generator 102 can havemany inputs, including measuring devices 106 (such as temperature andimpedance monitors), inputs that relay information on the presence ortype of attached devices (104 or 108) for example by using an integratedcircuit. Attached devices 104 and 108 may be unconnected to one another,may communicate among each other or be connected to one another (forexample, an energy-delivering probe having an internal channel to carrycooling fluid from a pump), and/or may be physically connected to themeasuring device(s) 106 (for example, an energy delivering probe havinga thermocouple mounted in the tip).

FIG. 2 shows an illustrative embodiment of the components of generator102. Generator 102 comprises an input interface 200 for receiving inputsfrom measuring devices 106 and, as applicable, attached devices 104 and108. An output interface 202 supplies output for controlling orcommunicating with attached devices 104 and 108 and, as applicable,measurement devices 106. Monitoring circuits 204 monitor input receivedvia input interface 200 (i.e. input measurements) and monitor output forsupply via output interface 202 (i.e. output measurements). Informationfrom the monitoring circuits 204 is communicated to an error detectingunit, such as a microprocessor 208, configurable by data andinstructions 210 for error detection and analysis which may be stored ina memory 212. Configuration parameters 206 stored in memory 212 can alsoprovide input to the microprocessor 208. Generator 102 further includesa display interface 214 for outputting a display of error information asfurther described below. Though shown as separate input and outputinterfaces, persons of skill in the art will appreciate that a combinedinput/output interface (I/O) may be employed. Though not shown, inputinterface 200, output interface 202 or an additional input, output orI/O interface may be coupled to one or more user input devices(keyboard, microphone, pointing device, scanner, etc.), storage devices,or communication networks for inputting, outputting or communicatingdata and commands for the operation of the generator, whether treatmentoperations or error detecting and analysis operations. While shownlocally coupled to generator 102, memory 212 may be remotely located andcoupled for communication with generator 102 via a suitable interface(not shown). Display interface 214 may couple generator 102 to a displaydevice 110 (e.g. a monitor) or may comprise a communications interfaceto another system such as a computer system having a display device forreceiving output of the display of the errors.

In some embodiments, generator 102 may further comprise an event datarecorder, which may be associated with, for example, microprocessor 208and/or memory 212. The event data recorder may be operable to store dataassociated with the operation of generator 102 and/or any devicesassociated with generator 102 such that the data may be retrievable inthe event that generator 102 were to fail. Data that may be stored bythe event data recorder includes, but is not limited to, any errorsdetected in the operation of generator 102 and/or any devices associatedwith generator 102, input measurements, output measurements, controlsignals, configuration parameters and/or treatment parameters. In theevent of failure of generator 102, data regarding the operation ofgenerator 102 prior to failure may be retrieved from the event datarecorder for analysis, thus facilitating diagnosis of the cause offailure of generator 102.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart of operations 300 for error detection andanalysis, according to a method aspect of the invention. In accordancewith the preferred embodiment, operations 300 begin at start block 302,for example, following assembly of system 100 and power up. At step 304,input and output measurements are continuously monitored and measuredvalues are compared to respective predefined threshold values or rangesof allowed values, on an ongoing basis. If a measurement is within athreshold or range, no error is generated at step 306 (No branch). Whena measurement is beyond a threshold or outside a range, an error isgenerated (step 306, Yes branch). Errors can also be generated bycomparing current system settings, or configuration parameters 206, topredefined values; for example, if it has been predefined that thesystem 100 must reach a set temperature and the total time for thetreatment has been predefined, then an error will be generated if thepreset time for the system 100 to reach the set temperature (ramp time)is greater than the total preset time for the treatment.

Multiple input and output measurements may be monitored allowing thegeneration of multiple errors at step 306 via Yes branch to step 308.Once an error is generated, operations 300 classify the error inresponse to specific conditions of the error. For example, if an invalidtemperature measurement is detected, operations 300 may classify thetemperature measurement as too low or too high. Many levels of increasedspecificity of classification may occur. For example, for a temperaturemeasurement that is classified as too low: if the temperaturemeasurement is between 5° C. and 15° C., the error classification mayindicate a properly functioning device but a temperature too low tooperate; if the temperature measurement is below 5° C., the errorclassification may indicate a malfunctioning temperature sensor. At step308 errors will be classified to the maximum extent. An embodiment of amethod of classification is discussed further herein below.

If at step 310 it is determined that only a single error exists, adetailed error message is displayed describing the error at step 312.Preferably, corrective action that can be taken to resolve the error issuggested. In one alternate embodiment (not shown), the display oferrors (step 312) is coincident with or precedes an automatedmodification of the operations of generator 102, such as the halting ofenergy delivery or switching to another mode based on the errorsgenerated.

At step 310, if it is determined that multiple errors exist, operations300 proceed via Yes branch to step 314. At this point, the set of errorsis analyzed in order to determine whether any errors can be combined,being symptomatic of a particular problem. For example, simultaneouserrors showing high impedance and an invalid temperature measurement maybe indicative of a broken connector or disconnected device. In apreferred embodiment, the first detected errors are combined to formsecond errors, if applicable. The combination may be determined withreference to a predetermined lookup table or logic tree, discussedfurther below, which lists all possible first errors and the ways inwhich at least some of those first errors may be combined to form new(i.e. second) errors. If at least some of these first errors can becombined (step 314, Yes branch), such first errors are combined to formsecond errors (step 316). Any remaining uncombined first errors remainas independent errors (step 314, No branch). All second (i.e. combined)errors and remaining first (i.e. independent) errors are preferablyprioritized (step 318).

At step 312, first and second errors can be displayed one at a time, orcan be displayed in a number of other ways including simultaneously,with all errors appearing at once, in groups, or on separate screensthat can be toggled or scrolled. For example, the errors may bedisplayed in stacked and/or staggered windows, wherein a higher priorityerror may be displayed in the foreground, for example at least partiallyobscuring at least one lower priority error. In such embodiments,resolving the higher priority error may cause the display of the higherpriority error to be cleared, in effect un-obstructing the display ofthe next highest priority error.

In the preferred embodiment, prioritization of first and second errors318 is responsive to the degree of complexity of resolving each error,or degree to which resolving one error will resolve other concomitanterrors. For example, an error that requires an entire treatment deviceto be changed is prioritized over an error that requires repositioning adevice and not changing the device. As a further example, trend analysismay be used to help determine a likely root cause of an error, asdescribed in more detail below. In such a case, the error detected bythe trend analysis may be given a high priority due to the fact that alikely root cause has been determined, such that resolving this errormay help to resolve one or more other errors. However, prioritization oferrors may also be based on a number of other factors including, but notlimited to, the severity of the error, the measurable parameter to whichthe error relates, the magnitude of the measured parameter that led tothe error (for example, the amount of voltage overshoot or measuredtemperature), the order in which the error was detected, or any othercharacteristic by which errors can be sorted. For example, in someembodiments, errors may be prioritized based on the relative severity ofeach error rather than the absolute magnitude of the errors. In otherwords, if two separate errors are detected, each related to a differentparameter of energy delivery, the errors may not be prioritized based onthe absolute magnitude of the measured parameters, since the parametersdiffer, but may rather be prioritized based on the relative severity ofeach error. For example, an error based on a temperature overshoot of 15degrees may have a lower priority than a voltage overshoot of 10 V, eventhough the absolute magnitude of the temperature error is higher thanthe voltage error, since the voltage error may be indicative of a moresevere system failure. Prioritization of errors may occur following theclassification of errors, for example as Type 1, 2 or 3 errors asdescribed herein below.

Grouping and prioritizing errors may aid a user in resolving systemproblems quickly and with minimal confusion, which can help ensurepatient safety by reducing treatment disruption as both error diagnosisand correction times are minimized. For example, as may occur with aprior art device, a user may receive two concurrent errors showing highimpedance and invalid temperature measurement with no indication of whatis causing the errors. In such a case, the user would have to check allpossible sources of each error, to determine the actual cause(s) of theerrors, and to determine whether each error was caused by a problem withthe equipment or by a potentially dangerous problem with the treatmentitself (e.g. high impedance being caused by tissue vaporization).Knowing if the actual cause of both errors is simply that a device hasbecome disconnected, will allow the user to quickly resolve the problemand continue with the treatment, in accordance with a goal of thepresent invention.

In some embodiments of the present invention, the generator itself mayfacilitate troubleshooting or diagnosis of one or more detected errors.For example, a generator may be operable to perform one or more testprocedures to test the integrity, stability or performance, for example,of an internal generator component or an external device associated withthe generator. In some such embodiments, a generator may deliver one ormore electrical signals, for example test voltages or current signals,to an associated device in order to ascertain whether or not the devicehas failed and, if so, where the point of failure may have occurred. Forexample, a generator may employ Time-Domain Reflectrometry (TDR)analysis to determine the point of wire damage in a cable/probecombination, in order to ascertain whether the point of failure lies inthe probe or in the cable. In other words, if a user receives ahigh-impedance error, it may be indicative of a damaged electricalconductor between the generator and the probe. In order to furtherdiagnose the error, the generator may deliver a test signal to the probevia the cable connecting the probe to the generator and may detect areturn signal from the probe/cable combination. If a return signal isdetected, this may be indicative of a break in the conductive pathwaybetween the generator and the probe, leading to a reflection of thesignal back to the generator. The generator may then employ TDR in orderto determine how far along the conductive pathway the failure hasoccurred, in order to ascertain whether the failure is in the cable,probe or, alternatively, in the generator itself. In some embodiments, asystem of the present invention may further comprise one or morecomponents to allow one or more associated devices to be connected tothe generator, for example in a loop-through connection, in order toenable the generator to test those devices, as described above.

In further embodiments, one or more of the associated devices may beoperable to transmit one or more signals to the generator to indicate amode or point of failure of the device. In such embodiments, thegenerator may not necessarily be able to perform the testing proceduresdescribed above but may be operable to receive signals indicative ofdevice failure from the associated devices and analyze those signals inorder to more accurately determine the root cause of a detected error.

While FIG. 3 shows a general flowchart of operations for analyzing andclarifying errors, the criteria by which errors are defined can vary ina number of ways. In the preferred embodiment, the sets or ranges ofacceptable output or input measurements, or the thresholds above orbelow which errors are triggered, such as ranges of temperature, can bechanged, or may be made dependent on the values of other measuredparameters. As well, in the preferred embodiment, a mode of operation orprogress through a treatment procedure, can affect the classification oferrors.

In one embodiment, three different types of errors (e.g. type 1, type 2and type 3) may be produced depending on the mode of operation orprocedural progress. The operation of the generator 102 may beresponsive to the type of error produced. Type 1 errors are generatedwhen immediate patient and/or equipment protection is required. For atype 1 error, treatment operations of the system 100 may beautomatically modified, discontinuing all generator output to energydelivery devices 104 and/or peripheral treatment devices 108. Furthertreatment using the system 100 requires a system reset. Type 1 errorscannot be immediately resolved by the user and have the highestpriority.

Unlike a type 1 error, type 2 errors are anticipated to be correctableby the user and treatment may progress once they have been resolved.Generator 102 may respond to a type 2 error by modifying the operationof the system 100 either discontinuing all generator output 202 toenergy delivery devices 104 and/or peripheral treatment devices 108 orswitching the operation of the system 100 to a predetermined mode ofoperation dependent on the error. The errors remain displayed until theproblem(s) that cause them is (are) resolved.

Type 3 errors have the lowest priority of the three types of errors;treatment operations of the system 100 need not be automatically haltedor suspended by generator 102 and clear after being briefly displayed,or upon being cleared manually by the user. Whether a given error isclassified as a type 1, 2, or 3 error depends on the current mode ofoperation. For example, an invalid impedance measurement in a standbymode may be due to a reasonable action by the user, such as a removal ofa probe in order to inject additional treatment fluid through theintroducer needle, but the same invalid impedance measurement in anenergy delivery mode could indicate vaporization of body tissue orfaulty equipment.

Another factor that can affect the classification of errors is theconfiguration parameters 206 within generator 102. In the preferredembodiment, generator 102 can be configured to expect a certain numberor type of device(s) to be connected to it, and can generate errorsbased on this expectation. For example, if generator 102 is configuredto apply radiofrequency energy through one probe, and two probes areconnected, an error will be displayed in order to inform the user ofexcess connections, even if the probe through which energy will bedelivered is working correctly.

While the embodiment discussed above describes a system 100 capable ofanalyzing errors as they occur, based on predetermined criteria, it isalso possible that such a system 100 could include analysis of trends inmeasurements in order to detect errors (for example, producing an errorif the temperature drops about 10° C. in about 1 second, wherein theerror is detected based on a change in temperature over time, ratherthan only producing an error if the temperature apparentlyinstantaneously drops below a certain level, wherein the error isdetected based on a specific temperature value), or that such a system100 could detect errors based on analysis of trends in errors (forexample, repeated high impedance errors in a given mode, occurring withgreater frequency than could be attributed to user actions, can indicatea frayed wire). Trends may be analyzed over the course of one or moretreatment procedures or over the course of an extended period of time,for example one or more days or weeks or any other period of time. Forexample, intermittent connectivity during RF delivery, if occurring witha variety of probes, cables and grounding pads, for example over thecourse of a single procedure or several procedures over a period oftime, may be attributable to a faulty conductive pathway (for example awire or electrical conductor) within the generator itself. Trendanalysis can also be used to create type 3 errors, or warnings ofimminent errors. For example, if repeated high temperature errors wereto be generated, a type 3 error could be produced to warn the user thatthey are in danger of causing permanent damage to the system 100 (type 1error imminent). In one embodiment, ranges of acceptable input data forerror determination are dependent on trend analysis of errors; forexample, if repeated errors are generated based on a certain measurableparameter, the sensitivity of measurement of that parameter could beautomatically adjusted (increased or decreased). Trend analysis may bebased, for example, on one or more of: frequency, classification andmagnitude of the detected errors and/or measurements.

Table 1 shows a portion of a logic tree as used in one embodiment forthe classification of errors in a lesion-making system 100. In thisexample, the lesion-making system 100 comprises a generator 102, up totwo probes 104 each furnished with electrodes (i.e. one active electrodeand one return electrode) for the delivery of energy, measuring devicesincluding a thermocouple and an impedance monitor 106, and may comprisea grounding pad to be used to the receive the delivered energy. In theexample of Table 1, the system 100 is configured to deliver energythrough only one probe 104, and is in “READY” mode, prior to thedelivery of energy.

TABLE 1 LESIONING (READY) (Secondary Probe disabled) CHECK 1 PrimaryProbe Thermocouple temperature valid? Result Pass Fail Action Goto CHECK3 Goto CHECK 2 CHECK 2 Valid Impedance between RF Active and RF Return?Result Pass Fail Action E01 E02 CHECK 3 Secondary Probe Thermocoupletemperature not present? Result Pass Fail Action Goto CHECK 4 W11 CHECK4 Valid Impedance between RF Active and RF Return? Result Pass FailAction Goto LESIONING ON - INITIALIZATION If High: W12 (Secondary Probedisabled) If Low: W13

Consider, as an example, a system configured according to Table 1,whereby a thermocouple 106 mounted on probe 104 was not functioning. Inthis example, CHECK 1 would find the Primary Probe Thermocoupletemperature to be invalid and fail, moving to CHECK 2. If the impedancemeasurement was valid, CHECK 2 would pass and error E01 would bedisplayed informing the user of a temperature error. Table 2 lists aportion of the display messages for system 100 of the presentembodiment. If, in a contrasting example, the probe 104 was properlyconnected, but was not in contact with the tissue, CHECK 1 would findthe Primary Probe Thermocouple temperature to be valid and pass to CHECK3. CHECK 3 would find no indication of the presence of a second probe104 and pass to CHECK 4. CHECK 4 would find an invalid impedance betweenthe two probes 104 and fail, creating an error. The invalid impedanceerror would further be classified as a high impedance error, causingerror W12 (see Table 2) to be displayed. If, in the system 100 used inthe above examples, a probe 104 were disconnected, both invalidtemperature and high impedance errors would result. In this example,CHECK 1 would find the Primary Probe Thermocouple temperature to beinvalid and proceed to CHECK 2. CHECK 2 would then find the impedance tobe invalid and would fail, displaying error E02, as described in Table2, which informs the user that the probe 104 is not connected. Thus,rather than displaying separate errors for invalid temperature and highimpedance, the invention produces a third, unique, combined error.

TABLE 2 Type Code Displayed Message TYPE 2 E01 Invalid TemperatureReading Check Probe and Cable Connections Possible defective probe orcable. Try new probe and cable if problem persists TYPE 2 E02 Probe NotConnected Check probe and cable connections. Probe or cable(s) may bedefective TYPE 2 E03 Temperature Out-of-range Outside 15-100° C.expected range. Probe or cable may be defective TYPE 2 E04 SecondaryProbe Connected But Disabled in Advance Settings Disconnect SecondaryProbe or, if desired, enable Secondary Probe in ADVANCED SETTINGS TYPE 2E05 High Impedance Detected Check Probe and Cable Connections. Probe orCable may be defective TYPE 2 E06 Low Impedance Detected Check probe andcable connections. Possible short circuit in probe or cable TYPE 3 W11Secondary Probe Connected But Disabled in Advance Settings DisconnectSecondary Probe or, if desired, enable Secondary Probe in ADVANCEDSETTINGS TYPE 3 W12 High Impedance Detected Check Probe and CableConnections. Probe or Cable may be defective TYPE 3 W13 Low ImpedanceDetected Check probe and cable connections. Possible short circuit inprobe or cable

Table 3 provides a manner to classify errors for a system 100 configuredto deliver energy through only one probe 104, similar to Table 1, whichis in “ON” (energy delivery) mode. As described above, a system 100 maybe configured to have different thresholds above or below which errorsare detected, depending on operating modes, or could classify errorsdifferently depending on a current operating mode. For example, in asystem 100 configured according to Table 3, if a probe 104 is properlyconnected but is not in contact with the tissue while energy isdelivered, CHECK 1 would find the Primary Probe Thermocouple temperatureto be valid and pass to CHECK 3. CHECK 3 would find no valid measurementto indicate the presence of a second probe 104 and pass to CHECK 4.CHECK 4 would find an invalid impedance and fail, creating an error. Theinvalid impedance error would further be classified as a high impedanceerror, causing error E05, as shown in Table 2, to be displayed. Unlikeerror W12 in the above example, which corresponds to a Type 3 error, andwould display on the generator screen for a number of seconds, but wouldnot modify the treatment operations of the system 100, error E05 is aType 2 error and generator 102 will respond to modify its operations tohalt treatment operations (i.e. discontinuing the delivery of energy).Thus, the type of error can depend on a mode of operation of thegenerator.

TABLE 3 LESIONING ON (Secondary Probe disabled) CHECK 1 Primary ProbeThermocouple temperature valid? Result Pass Fail Action Goto CHECK 3Goto CHECK 2 CHECK 2 Valid Impedance between RF Active and RF Return?Result Pass Fail Action E03 E02 CHECK 3 Secondary Probe Thermocoupletemperature not present? Result Pass Fail Action Goto CHECK 4 E04 CHECK4 Valid Impedance between RF Active and RF Return? Result Pass FailAction Goto LESIONING DONE (Secondary Probe If High: E05 disabled) IfLow: E06

Tables 1 and 3 show a portion of logical configuration data fordetecting and analysing errors based on a physical configuration of thesystem 100. For example, if a system 100 were configured to deliverenergy through only one probe 104, as in Table 1, but had 2 probes 104connected, the system 100 would find the Primary Probe Thermocoupletemperature to be valid and pass to CHECK 3. CHECK 3 would then detectthe presence of a valid temperature reading from the thermocouple 106attached to the second probe 104 and would fail, displaying error W11,which instructs the user to either remove the second probe 104, if it isnot intended to be used, or to enable the use of the second probe 104(Table 2).

Variations to the embodiments and examples described above include, butare not limited to: types of inputs or outputs, the language orclassification (e.g. a numbering system) used in the display of errormessages, the manner of communicating errors (including displaying themessages, or communicating the errors to other devices for displayingand/or other use), the criteria for combining errors, the classificationof types or degrees of error, and/or the specific physical configurationof a medical treatment system using such an error logic, may be employedby any user that is skilled in the art, and are intended to be includedwithin the scope of the invention. The scope of the invention istherefore intended to be limited solely by the scope of the appendedclaims.

1. A method of prioritizing errors in a medical treatment systemcomprising an energy source and at least one associated device, themethod comprising: detecting at least two errors in the operation of atleast one of the energy source and the at least one associated device;and prioritizing one of the at least two errors over at least one otherof the at least two errors based on at least one characteristic of eachof the at least two errors; whereby detecting at least two errorscomprises comparing at least one of input measurements, outputmeasurements, and configuration parameters for the operation of theenergy source and the at least one associated device, with respectiveexpected measurements or expected parameters, or both.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein each of the errors is prioritized during the step ofprioritizing at least one of the at least two errors.
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the characteristic comprises a factor associated withresolving each of the at least two errors.
 4. The method of claim 1,wherein the characteristic comprises a severity of each of the at leasttwo errors.
 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the factor associated withresoling each of the at least two errors comprises a complexity ofresolving each of the at least two errors.
 6. The method of claim 3,wherein the factor associated with resoling each of the at least twoerrors comprises a degree to which resolving each of the at least twoerrors will resolve another error.
 7. The method of claim 1, whereby atleast some of the expected measurements and expected parameters areresponsive to manual changing.
 8. The method of claim 1, whereby atleast some of the expected measurements and expected parameters areresponsive to a mode of operation of the energy source.
 9. The method ofclaim 1, whereby at least some of the expected measurements and expectedparameters are responsive to measurements input into the system.
 10. Themethod of claim 1, whereby at least some of the expected measurementsand expected parameters are responsive to said first or second errors.11. The method of claim 1, comprising classifying the at lease twoerrors in response to specific values of the input measurements, outputmeasurements, and configuration parameters used in the detection of saiderrors.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of prioritizingcomprises referencing predetermined criteria for assigning a priority toeach of the at least two errors.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein thestep of prioritizing is responsive at least in part to an order in whichthe at east two errors were detected.
 14. The method of claim 1, whereinthe energy source is a radio-frequency generator.
 15. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising a step of prioritizing a response to thehigher priority error relative to a response to any other error.
 16. Themethod of claim 15, wherein an error message responsive to the higherpriority error is displayed such that it at least partially obscures anerror message responsive to a lower priority error.
 17. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the energy source comprises a plurality of inputs. 18.The method of claim 17, wherein the plurality of inputs is selected fromthe group consisting of inputs from measuring devices and inputs thatrelay information on the type and quantity of any devices attached tothe energy source.
 19. The method of claim 17, wherein at least twoerrors comprises at least two errors responsive to signals receivedsubstantially concurrently from at least two of the plurality of inputs.20. The method of claim 4, wherein an error that is more complex toresolve is prioritized over an error that is simpler to resolve.
 21. Amethod of prioritizing errors in a medical treatment system comprisingan energy source and at least one associated device, the methodcomprising: detecting at least two errors in the operation of at eastone of the energy source and the at east one associated device;prioritizing one of the at least two errors over at least one other ofthe at least two errors based on at least one characteristic of each ofthe at least two errors; and outputting a display of the at least twoerrors based on their relative priority; wherein outputting a displaycomprises displaying the at least two errors such that the display ofthe higher priority error at least partially obscures the display of alower priority error.
 22. The method of claim 21, wherein resolving thehigher priority error results in the display of the lower priority errorbecoming unobstructed.
 23. A method of prioritizing errors in a medicaltreatment system comprising an energy source and at least one associateddevice, the method comprising: detecting at least two errors in theoperation of at least one of the energy source and the at least oneassociated device; and prioritizing one of the at least two errors overat least one other of the at least two errors based on at least onecharacteristic of each of the at least two errors; wherein the one ofthe at least two errors s related to a first parameter of energydelivery, and wherein the at least one other of the at east two errorsis related to a second parameter of energy delivery different than thefirst parameter of energy delivery, and wherein the one of the errors isprioritized over the at least one other of the at least two errors basedon a relative severity of the errors.